Talk: Parella

Parella's evolve into Zora's?

This is just mere speculation but, if you compare the looks of Zora's to Parella's they look slightly similar. My guess is that the Parella race became the Zora's over time. To help back this up look at the races of the land in Skyward Sword. The only race in that game that we know of was the Goron tribe. Considering that no other tibe from Skyward Sword was in an earlier game other the Gorons may prove that the races changed over time and the Parella race may have become the Zora. Even the Water Dragon Faron looks sorta like a Zora. Whats everyone's opinion on this? --Nathbuds123 18:42, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Parella Evolving mention in HH

The Hyrule historia does not state the Parella evolve into Zora nor is there any mention of it in game. This is false information and probably should not be added to the article until there is actual evidence that can be backed up by more than speculation based on their appearance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djinn (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have any proof, I've got no qualms with removing it. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.—Justin^(Talk) 21:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, we could move it to a theory section, perhaps? Never mind. I'm doing it. User:Darkness/sig 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think that it is a good idea to include it as a theory. It has been proposed as a possibility, for example here and here. Also there seems to be a hint in the last section on page 128 of HH that another transformation took place which could involve the Zora's ancestors. Zeldafan1982 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your opposition. You're citing its notability as a possibility, but you don't think it should be on the page? It's not confirmed but it's a definite possibility (one which I personally think has some weight to it) so what's wrong with including it in a theory section?—Justin^(Talk) 03:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But I'm not opposing :) I said that it is a good idea to include it as a theory. Zeldafan1982 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bleh...I misread your post. Sorry!—Justin^(Talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That quote on page 128 is both taken out of context and mistranslated. It's talking about the change from the Zora to the Rito between OoT and WW, not about the Parella and Zora during the Era of Chaos. As for the mention of the Era of Chaos, the official translators (Dark Horse) used the more proper translation of "tumultuous eras of the past." The Japanese text for "The Era of the Mighty Ocean" is 大海原時代, while the text in question is 混沌の時代. The former is literally "Mighty (大) Ocean (海原) Era/Age (時代)", a proper title for the specific era. The latter uses the particle の to describe "an era/age (時代) of (の) chaos (混沌)". In the same way, 東京の大学 (Tokyo no daigaku) describes "a [arbitrary] university in Tokyo" while 東京大学 (Tokyo Daigaku) refers to the specific university called "Tokyo Daigaku".

Furthermore, on page 48: "The Phantom Zora: We originally planned to have a race that closely resembled the Zora, but we were told to design a more primitive race, and the idea was rejected." The one quote used to support the theory doesn't support it at all, and here's a quote that makes it even less likely. There is really no reason to think the Parella become the Zora except speculation, which shouldn't appear on an informational article. User:Locke/Sig 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the official translation is quite different. I think the theory can still stay though. It has some support and, in my view at least, it isn't implausible. Zeldafan1982 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Locke has a point, though. If the developers had intended for there to be a connection, you'd think they'd have said something about it in Hyrule Historia. The one quote that is there rather suggests the opposite, as Locke said.

According to policy, theories must show evidence to support them and have a reasonable amount of acceptance in the community to be added to articles. This theory may have the latter, but there is no serious evidence to suggest that the Parella evolved into the Zora other than that they're both aquatic creatures and the Zora have been known to evolve before (after, timeline-wise). I think we should scrap the theory and turn that HH quote into a Trivia bullet.

@Locke: Tell the people at ZD Wiki that ZW says hi. :P — Hylian King ^[*] 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I understand it is that a more humanoid look (like the one of the Zoras) was scraped in favor of a more primitive look. This quote concerns the appearance. I don't think it touches on whether the two species are related. HH doesn't say that they are related, but is this enough to conclude that they aren't? In my opinion no, especially since they want to leave some room for individual interpretation (from page 68: "you will be able to discover for yourself the real history of Hyrule"). I don't mean by that that everything in HH is subjective of course. The order of the games for example is definitely canon.

The article doesn't say that they are related, only states the possibility. Given that the Zoras don't appear in SS and that there is a confirmed instance of them evolving, I don't think we should exclude the possibility of another transformation. Zeldafan1982 00:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

From a real-world, biological perspective, Zoras have more in common with frogs and common fish than Medusozoan life forms, such as being a vertebral, amphibious species. While this doesn't have relevance to a series that takes liberties in such accuracy, I think it would be a mistake to allow fanon to take illogical measures, as to allow other, far more ridiculous notions to perpetrate. - Tony^{T S C} 01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that these amphibious creatures have been known to evolve into birds. :P — Hylian King ^[*] 11:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)